By in Politics

Should We Let Muslims Defeat Muslim Extremists?

It seems likely that Parliament will be recalled on Friday and the government will ask for a vote to give permission for the UK to get directly involved in air strikes on ISIS in Iraq. At the moment it seems unlikely that the UK will get similarly involved with the situation in Syria. The majority of politicians seem to want a UN resolution (most unlikely to happen) before taking action in Syria.

I'm not sure what to think. In most conflicts it pays to do the opposite of what your opponents want you to do. In this case, it seems ISIS are trying to provoke the West into taking direct action. They seem to believe that every Western intervention acts as a recruitment drive for their evil cause. Would it be better to insist that Muslim countries should take the direct action necessary to defeat ISIS? Could the West 'just' supply arms, intelligence, finance and logistical support?

Image Credit »

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.


bestwriter wrote on September 24, 2014, 7:06 AM

Are you seeing any signs of Muslims contemplating such activity? Why should it not be a joint effort?

MegL wrote on September 24, 2014, 8:01 AM

Every country has its problems with some people wanting one thing and others another. It is sometimes hard to know what is the best action or position to take. A position may be "what is best for this country" or it may be more philanthropic, "what is best for the world". Politicians often work on the basis of "what will get me re-elected"!

suffolkjason wrote on September 24, 2014, 8:09 AM

A number of Muslim countries participated in the recent air strikes.

Because when non-muslim countries get involved, extremists use it as an excuse to portray them as the enemy and to recruit young, impressionable muslims.

suffolkjason wrote on September 24, 2014, 8:13 AM

It's worrying to think that politicians would make such important decisions on the basis of what will help their electoral standing, but you're probably right. :(

Ellis wrote on September 24, 2014, 11:41 AM

I think so...but I have a feeling they are only bowing to American pressure and I'm sure IS, ISIS, ISIL or whatever name they are going by this week, will think so to..

BarbRad wrote on September 24, 2014, 12:15 PM

Most countries won't act until they think they are in danger. Were I in the president's shoes, I'd be trying to evacuate all Americans from countries in the Middle East who are in the path of ISIS,forbidding entry back into the US to those who have obviously gone to terrorist countries for evil purposes, and enforcing all borders that offer easy entrance to people from everywhere. Then I would let the Middle East deal with the rest. The flaw in that is it still makes the genocide of "apostates" those of non-Muslim religions, and ethnic minorities easy for ISIS without interference. The problem I see with giving weapons and training is that, historically, they almost always wind up being used against us.

suffolkjason wrote on September 24, 2014, 12:36 PM

The acts of genocide are why I think we should help and maintain a presence but I think it should always be Muslims firing the bullets and missiles. I agree about the weapons and training- it would have to be done very selectively and judiciously. It's a nightmare- even the 'good' countries are totalitarian and quite capable of the worst atrocities.

Everyone says that 99% of Muslims are decent and peace loving, now is the time for that majority to step up to the plate and prove it.

GemOfAGirl wrote on September 25, 2014, 2:46 PM

I agree with you, in that the worst thing you can do is the very thing that your enemy wants you to do. I'm not a military strategist or anything, but as far as I can tell, the proper word for that is a "trap" (and my tongue is only slightly in my cheek as I say that). I don't know about the military budgets of other nations, but I do know that the U.S. has spent billions in the last thirteen years trying to rid that part of the world of terrorists and train the armies of at least two nations to defend themselves, and the return on that "investment" appears to be a great big zero for everyone except the defense industry. There are so many different ethnic groups that have conflicts dating back centuries - it's hard to convince a group to fight for a conglomeration of groups when they don't see it as being for themselves, i.e., Kurds won't be easily convinced to fight for Sunnis or Shia, etc. They're far more likely to use the strength of other (such as that of western nations) for only as long as it suits their purposes, and for no longer; once they're done they move on to other "alliances" to get what they want. When western nations get involved, that's used as a recruiting tool, as well as a source of weaponry.

suffolkjason wrote on September 25, 2014, 2:53 PM

It's disturbing to think that decisions are influenced by commercial factors- oil and defense industry - but I bet they're part of the equation.

GemOfAGirl wrote on September 25, 2014, 3:03 PM

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think those are the real, actual reasons the U.S. is getting involved. That, and the fact that we have an election coming up in November. Nothing riles up the electorate like military action.

SLGarcia wrote on September 26, 2014, 11:27 AM

I for one am hoping that the U.S. does not get involved in another very long conflict. I agree that other Muslims should be doing all they can to fight the extremists.

suffolkjason wrote on September 26, 2014, 1:43 PM

Not cynical- realistic.

suffolkjason wrote on September 26, 2014, 1:45 PM

Well we just voted to let our pea-shooters join in. Cameron said that it would take not weeks or months, but years to defeat ISIS/ISIL